CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Jurisdictional Hearing
.........Jurisdictional Grounds
............300(j): Abuse of Sibling
 15 Cards On This Topic:
  • Petition for dependency may be sustained if minor’s sibling abused or neglected.
  • Finding of jurisdiction over adoptive son under W&IC 300(j) affirmed where substantial evidence supported findings his deceased sister was abused by mother per 300(i), and there was a substantial risk son would also be abused.
  • Father's prolonged and egregious sexual abuse of his own daughter may provide substantial evidence to support a finding that all his children, male or female, are juvenile court dependents.
  • Juvenile court erred in dismissing W&IC 300 petition as to 10-yr.-old C because evidence established she was at risk for sexual abuse by F based on his earlier sexual abuse of her elder half-sister.
  • F's repeatedly exposing son to F's sexual abuse of daughter, and allowing son to engage in the struggle, placed son at substantial risk of sexual abuse.
  • Substantial evidence supported jurisdictional findings and F's removal from home where his long-time solicitation of sex from stepdaughter constituted abuse and placed both her and her stepsister at risk of harm.
  • Sustained count as to C under W&IC 300(j) did not require a sustained count under section 300(a), (b), (d), (e), or (i) as to her deceased brother; substantial evidence supported court's finding that count j was true.
  • W&IC 300(j) doesn't limit grounds of adjudication for C to section under which sibling abused; 300(j) directs court to consider if there is a substantial risk C will be abused/neglected under terms of (a), (b), (d), (e), ••or•• (i).
  • Juvenile court's findings under W&IC 300(d) and (j) were proper where court could conclude that F's aberrant sexual behavior with his stepdaughters placed his 2-yr.-old son at risk of sexual abuse.
  • Evidence of step-Cs' physical and sexual abuse sufficient to support finding son at substantial risk of harm under W&IC 300 (j) and sufficient to justify removing son from F's custody at disposition.
  • F not denied due process and fair hearing when court found true C2 & C3's petitions for physical abuse before it heard evidence concerning C1's petition where F given full opportunity to present extensive evidence.
  • Sufficient evidence supported order that abused Cs were at substantial risk of harm where incarcerated F could be released and resume abuse and mother still would not be willing or able to protect them; W&IC 300(b), (j), (d) discussed.
  • That parents left C with friend who sexually abused her did not indicate substantial risk at time of hearing that C2 would suffer, ••in the future••, serious physical harm as result of parents’ failure to protect C1 from caretaker.
  • Jurisdictional order reversed where HSA did not bear its burden of proving W&IC 300 (j) allegations re sibling neglect and substantial risk to C.
  • Cases discussing the jurisdictional ground of sibling abuse.


    •